Are these scopes truly flat field? It does not have built-in flattener like Celestron EdgeHD. How can this scope have flat field without flattener? It's my understanding that they may be "coma free" and not necessarily flat field.

What I am really interested about these scopes is internal zero shift Crayford focuser. My real question is does it still flop during imaging since they no longer have mirror locks?

Anyone that bought LX800 with Meade F/8 scope, do you like the scope (not the mount)? Have you done any imaging? If so, can you show photos?

One of the disadvantages for having a faster than f/10 SCT is bigger secondary mirror. That's how SCT works. It may not matter for imaging DSOs. I am not sure how this would impact the contrast for planets, visual or imaging.

With the imaging side of the hobby growing so fast, I would make an educated guess and say that the latest LX200 OTAs are pointed directly at the imaging fraternity.

Having said that, the optics of Meade's last attempt at f8, the RX400 series, had seriously good optics. The visual side of the equation said that views were very good. And if I remember correctly, the focus was done with the movement of the corrector/secondary mirror. No image shift OR mirror flop! It's unfortunate that the other bells and whistles were so troublesome.

I can tell you from having owned two RCXes previously, in 10 and 12 inch sizes, that the views were a LOT better than a standard SCT despite the larger secondary obstruction. It was from the f/8 RCX that the f10 LX200ACF was developed, and I have owned a few good LX200ACF tubes as well. I think the RCX400 views were even better. Just crisper stars, more refractor like. Not refractor like contrast with a secondary obstruction of course, but a lot more aperture than most refractors! Put me on AP's 12" f/8 refractor waiting list.

Is it "FLAT" without having a dedicated field flattener? (You can probably buy one for photography since you won't need one visually!) Well people beat me up on these forums when I said the views at the edge of the field of a Nagler 31mm rivaled APO refractor quality and so it must have a "flatter field".

The major issue with the RCX (and not one I've used) was the electrical focusing secondary with three motors that had to stay perfectly synched. For the first time in a mass produced SCT type scope, the primary was fixed. No image shift during focus, no flopping on either side of the meridian, nothing. If the new manual focus mechanism works as advertised, they have an excellent RCX optical design to work with and will be a winner. Sadly many RCX had focus runaways with the focusing secondary. Mine were perfect, zero image shift, worked as advertised, period. You collimated with the autostar with the same 3 focus motors too, that was awesome but recollimation was hardly needed despite how much banging around the 90 pound scope took getting the beast set up by myself.

But... but.. but... but only the EDGE can have a Flat Fieeeeellllldddddd!!!! Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh

Celestron sells a lot of the EdgeHD 11s, and they are only $100 less than the Meade 12 ($3399 versus $3499).

Also, the EdgeHD 14 is $5799 while the Meade 14 is $5999, and is as fast as the Edge with the $580 reducer attached. So, in that case, the Meade is actually $380 cheaper.

Except that it doesn't have a flat field. It also has a much larger central obstruction.

Visually (especially planetary observing/imaging), I don't think these are as good of scope as the Edges just based on the design specs. The Edge's were targeted at imagers, but a lot are realizing the benefits for visual use as well.

Celestron sells a lot of the EdgeHD 11s, and they are only $100 less than the Meade 12 ($3399 versus $3499).

Also, the EdgeHD 14 is $5799 while the Meade 14 is $5999, and is as fast as the Edge with the $580 reducer attached. So, in that case, the Meade is actually $380 cheaper.

Except that it doesn't have a flat field. It also has a much larger central obstruction.

Visually (especially planetary observing/imaging), I don't think these are as good of scope as the Edges just based on the design specs. The Edge's were targeted at imagers, but a lot are realizing the benefits for visual use as well.

Clear skies,

I kind of don't buy it, and I'll give you five reasons.

First, the ACFs have a flatter field than an SCT.
Second, the 12", even with the large obstruction, has more light-capturing area and better diffraction-limited resolution than the 11.
Third, ultimately the R/C will be available and that will give you a wider, faster, bigger flat field than an Edge with and R/C.
Fourth, these scopes are wider and faster natively meaning you can use the more central portion of the image circle for the same field of view than you can with the Edges. That means and even flatter field.
Fifth, early users of the 12" reported that the optics were stunningly good visually. At least one person reported them to be better than the Edge HD 11, and close to the 14.

Visually (especially planetary observing/imaging), I don't think these are as good of scope as the Edges just based on the design specs. The Edge's were targeted at imagers, but a lot are realizing the benefits for visual use as well.

Clear skies,

Probably not, but based on my experience with the RCX, they still deliver excellent images superior to those of a standard SCT.